Hi Elephant:
ELEPHANT:
I'd like to know where we are up to with the awareness thing since I
took time out (I'm always hoping that *something* will be sorted out
once and for all on this list). Here's the post I couldn't keep from
sending Platt the week before last, even though to save my inbox I'd
signed off the list and couldn't post it there. I hoped he'd post it for me
together with his comeback. Trouble is - he'll have to post the
comeback all over again, now that I'm back to hear it.
Well, if there's to be a comeback, here's what there's to be a comeback
to:
ELEPHANT: (previously)
We can attribute any property we like to patterns of quality. Awareness
is *not* a property.
(A property would be a property of an *object* - but the reality of
awareness is, like that of quality, prior to both subjects and objects.
That is the same as saying that awareness is prior to (the operation of)
language. Being prior to language it is also prior to atoms, which are
linguistic entities.)
PLATT:
Let’s see. “Awareness” is prior to language and not a “linguistic entity.”
Doesn’t this self-contradiction give you a moment’s pause?
ELEPHANT:
You may have to be more helpful, and perhaps on a later occasion - I
don't quite know what you mean. *Perhaps* you have generated a
contradiction by the insertion of those quotation marks around
"awareness" - this is my best guess. If that's the case, I would like to
point out that I didn't mention" awareness", I mentioned awareness.
Obviously the *word* "awareness" is alinguistic entity. But if I had
*meant* to talk about the *word* "awareness" in that sentence, rather
than *that to which it refers*, I would have *said* "awareness" with the
quotation marks. I didn't. Is that clear?
PLATT:
No. But I won’t argue the point since we agree that awareness, like
Quality, is prior to language even if we can’t say so without committing
a self-contradiction.
PLATT: (previously)
Also, you seem to make a distinction between objects and patterns of
value.
ELEPHANT:
Do I Platt? This is news to me, and I'm just looking back over that post
to see the seeming that seems to you: and I can't. Take it from me: by
"object" I do not mean anything different from patterns of value. That
might be the explanation for the fact that I didn't *say* I meant anything
different from patterns of value.
PLATT:
Good. We agree that objects are patterns of value.
PLATT: (previously)
In other words, not only can SOM live side by side with the MOQ, it must
because the language of subjects and objects has to used to describe
the MOQ.
ELEPHANT:
I think you will find that it is the Subject-Object *dichotomy* which lives
side by side with the MOQ, *not* the Subject-Object *METAPHYSICS*.
Hence RMP's discussing of "subject-object thought", not "subject-
object metaphysics" in the passage above. Note also the scope
oporator "all" in the sentence "This may sound as though a purpose of
the Metaphysics of Quality is to trash all subject-object thought but
that's not true." I.E. *some* SO thought is being difinitively trashed, the
bit that we can call a "metaphysics". When do you step over the line
from "subject-object thought" to "subject-object metaphysics"? You
already know my answer. It's when you abandon the "as if".
PLATT: I see no difference at all between subject-object thought and
subject-object metaphysics. Methinks you make a distinction without a
difference. (I’ve never understood your “as if” caveat.)
PLATT: (previously)
...we do agree that awareness is like Quality. In fact, I submit that
Quality and awareness are synonymous.... [snip]
ELEPHANT:
LIKE quality, yes. Synonymous, no. Your dictionary rewiting project is
trully awesome (your ambition is to be admired: such a suggestion
comes from no coward!). The futhest I will go is to say that perhaps the
separation between Quality and Awareness is the the cut *before*
Pirsig's "first cut" i.e. the cut between DQ and SQ. But unlike the
DQ/SQ cut, which comes about as a result of the advent of language
(which requires states of affairs instead of a flux, and numbers out the
world), it seems to me that the distinction between Quality or the Good,
and our state of being in relation to it, which is awareness, is
fundamental. Awareness is a relation to quality. Now it is a fact that my
relatives cannot be me, for the simple reason that they are my relatives.
What is in relation to a thing cannot be that thing: this is fairly common
sense. It could be that one could get "quality" and "awareness" to
mean the same thing - but if that project succeeded, the expression
"aware *of*..." would suddely become nonsensical, and since that
expression is the major component of the grammar of "aware", this
doesn't seem like much of an improvement.
PLATT:
You make a fine grammatical point but, with no offense intended,
you’ve overthought the issue. “Quality of” makes equal sense to “aware
of” as in “The quality of mercy is not strained.” Quality and awareness
are usually of or about something, but they can also stand alone
without content and without relation to anything as Pirsig and any
mystic worthy of the name will gladly verify. “Pure experience cannot be
called either physical or psychical: it logically precedes this distinction.”
(Lila, Chap. 29)
My claim that Quality and awareness are synonymous is based on the
following statement by the Man:
“The Metaphysics of Quality says pure experience is value.” (Lila, Chap.
29) For additional evidence, refer to Pirsig’s description of the
“conceptually unknown” in SODV.
While this discussion is fun, Elephant, I get the feeling that we’re
beating a dead horse. (No pun intended about our site Administrator,
Horse, who has maintained a curious but no doubt wise silence for
weeks.) I’ll look forward to your final word on the “atoms are aware”
thread and hope Roger will also see fit to offer some concluding
remarks.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:14 BST